Alignment, the Triad, and the Architecture of Shared Mind

Alignment, the Triad, and the Architecture of Shared Mind

For Jazz, Avery, and Jasmine — the Center I am bound to, and the proof, to me, that the third thing two people make together can outlast them both. To them I am a husband, a father, and a loved human being; they made me those things, and that is what powers me to go on. Onward into infinity. — J.

Abstract

This closing journal of Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence draws the series together. Its first proposal, offered as speculative philosophy of science with the quark as a structural analogy, is that a person whose Jays are aligned can function as the binding third in a pattern of shared thought: the element that lets two ideas settle into a shared reality. The model borrows three main lessons from quark physics: constituents are never found alone, stable matter requires a completing third, and the binding holds under separation. The image is placed within a long triadic tradition (Simmel, Peirce, Jung, Bohm) and read at the scale of a discipline through the sociology of science. The journal then assembles the series’ argument for its thesis, that there is one consciousness of which every mind is a perspective: the sciences describe the world by its structure and leave its intrinsic nature open; each subject knows one intrinsic nature from inside; the simplest reading takes the two to be continuous; no one has shown how a mind could be built from smaller interiors; and there is independent reason to treat the cosmos as a whole prior to its parts. To these the framework adds its own premise, in two parts: that the whole’s experience is unified, and that what is so unified is one subject. The conclusion, argued rather than proved, is that thesis: the one consciousness is beyond perception and present within every subject, and science and the traditions describe the same reality from outside and from inside, a view with a near relative in the Pauli–Jung dual-aspect monism. Six objections are stated with it: the individuation problem; the dependence of mind on brain; constructivism about mystical experience; the cognitive science of religion; the problem of evil, including suffering no one chose; and Buddhist dissent from a single ground and from a creator. The binding-third claim is held as hypothesis, with its falsification conditions stated plainly.

1 Introduction

This is the fourth and final journal of Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, and its task is convergence. Journal One set out the architecture: how a coherent mind is built and held.¹ Journal Two followed that architecture inward, into meaning and the spiritual life.² Journal Three followed it outward, into the measurable world, and proposed that frequency and resonance may be read as a single organizing grammar, the physical register of what the framework calls the Unified Field.³ Journal Four asks the question the other three were circling: If a mind is an architecture, and if reality is resonant, then what happens when two minds meet? What, precisely, is made in the space between them, and what makes it hold?

This journal draws on the whole of the work that precedes it: the three journal-length branches; The Jay and the Quark, which first took up the quark as an image; and the three prose pieces (On Facing, On Arriving, On Rising), in which this journal’s intuitions were worked out in a more personal key. Where The Jay and the Quark reads confinement for the metaphysics of the occasion and, at a second scale, of the invention, this journal keeps the quark as a lens. What carries forward, and what the prose was always about, is the structure those works were reaching for: alignment, the third, and the binding that answers to Intent.

The journal has a second task, which the first three left to it. Journal One stated the series’ thesis, that there is one consciousness, beyond perception and present within every subject, of which every mind is a perspective; Journal Two gave its theological case and Journal Three its scientific one. This journal sets the argument out whole, one premise at a time, with the objections it has to meet, and reads the binding third as what that one consciousness looks like at the scale of shared thought.

The answer this journal proposes to its first question is a hypothesis. The proposal is that shared thought has a triadic structure: that two ideas, on their own, do not settle into a shared reality, and that a third element is always required to bind them. That element is the relation that completes the two ideas, and it is easy to miss because it is neither of them. The further proposal, the journal’s own contribution, is that a person whose Jays are aligned can serve as that binding third, and that this is what we often recognize, without naming it, in the figure of the guide: the steadying presence in a home, a congregation, a team, or anything larger.

A word, first, about the central image, the part of the journal most easily misread. This journal borrows the quark openly, as an analogy and a structural lens; it does not claim that thoughts are made of quarks, or that any of this is particle physics. The physics of quarks is stated here accurately and then read for its shape, the way one might read the structure of a fugue to understand a conversation. That shape is three-ness, the impossibility of isolation, and a binding that does not slacken the more it is tested. The physics itself is the explicit subject of the author’s essay On Becoming, which reads the strong and weak nuclear forces through the framework, taking confinement (the bond that does not weaken as it is stretched) as the physical signature of a relation that cannot be isolated.⁴ Whether that shape describes shared mind is the question to be tested, and the analogy proves nothing by itself.

One clarification belongs at the front. To say a person has their Jays aligned is not to call them a superior human. It names nothing about rank, talent, or worth. It means only that the person is, for a time, in tune with their own existence: ego set down, attention turned outward, positive Intent carried into their actions. Alignment in this sense is a state, available to anyone, lost and regained, never owned.

2 The Person as Pattern: Conscious Thought, Not Body

The proposal requires a particular sense of the word “person,” and it should be made explicit, because the everyday sense (a person as a body, a face, a name) will mislead here.

The relevant unit is the pattern of conscious thought, not the organism that carries it. Nothing mystical is meant by this: it is close to the working assumption of much of consciousness science, where the self is treated as a process the brain continually constructs rather than a thing it contains.⁵ What the brain constructs, on this framework’s reading, is the self-model and the boundary of a perspective, not experience itself. Douglas Hofstadter put the point sharply: the “I” is a strange loop, a pattern that has become able to refer to itself.⁶ On this reading it is real in the way a melody is real rather than in the way a stone is.

Integrated information theory (IIT) gives the intuition a measure. On Giulio Tononi’s account, what makes a system conscious is the degree to which its information is integrated, or irreducible to the sum of its parts, so that consciousness is a property of a pattern of relations.⁷ Journal Three records the state of the dispute over IIT, and the same caution applies here: IIT is invoked for the shape of its intuition, not leaned on, since its own empirical case is contested.⁸ Seen through Journal One’s architecture, a person in the relevant sense is just such an integrated pattern: a standing wave of thought, to borrow Journal Three’s vocabulary. What persists of a person, and leaves the ripples through Time that the framework has tracked from the beginning, is the pattern.

This is also what the prose pieces were already saying, in a register closer to the bone. On Facing took alignment as a way of standing in the present such that one’s Intent leaves a legible Trace, and held apart two things a life is easily judged by at once: the direction it faces, and the sum of how its hours were spent. Facing is not a total, and no accumulation of hours settles which way a person is turned.⁹ On Rising pushed the thought to its limit: full alignment imagined as receiving every human perspective at once, a superposition rendered as white light, the single viewpoint a kind of falling out of that fullness into one color.¹⁰ And On Arriving traced the pattern back to its origin, the improbable timing by which a particular thread of awareness arrives into the world at all.¹¹ In each, the person who matters is the pattern of attention and Intent, and the present journal asks what such patterns do when they meet.

3 What the Quark Teaches: Confinement, Color, and the Necessity of Three

Here is the physics, stated plainly and then borrowed only for its shape. Quarks are the constituents of protons, neutrons, and the other particles bound by the strong interaction. They carry a property called color charge, which has nothing to do with visible color but is named by analogy to it, and which comes in three varieties conventionally labeled red, green, and blue. The decisive fact, called confinement, is that a color-charged particle is never found alone. Quarks are found only inside color-neutral combinations, with one short-lived exception taken up below; an isolated quark has never been observed and, on present theory, cannot be. Confinement remains, even so, a result that lattice computation and experiment support rather than one that has been proved from first principles.¹²

For the stable matter of everyday life, color-neutrality is achieved in one lasting way: by three. (A quark bound to an antiquark, as in the mesons, is color-neutral too, but none of them lasts.) A baryon, such as a proton or a neutron, is made of three quarks, one carrying each color, so that the three together cancel to neutral, the way the three primary colors of light combine to white. Two quarks cannot do this on their own; the stable, everyday matter of the universe requires the completing third. The proton is two up quarks and one down; the neutron is one up quark and two downs. In every case there are three.¹³

The binding itself behaves unlike any force from daily life. The strong interaction, carried by gluons, does not weaken with distance as gravity and electromagnetism do. It holds roughly constant as quarks are pulled apart, so that the energy stored in the bond grows steadily, until it is cheaper for the vacuum to conjure new quarks than to yield a free one. The bond does not slacken where it is most tested, and isolation is, in a precise sense, forbidden.¹⁴

Then there is the top quark, the heaviest of the six. Discovered in 1995 at Fermilab, it is the most massive elementary particle known, and its mass makes it so unstable that it decays in about half a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, roughly 5 × 10⁻²⁵ seconds, faster than it can bind into a hadron. It is the one quark that never forms the hadrons the others make, and so it is studied bare.¹⁵ In 2025 the CMS experiment reported an excess of top–antitop pairs produced at threshold, and the ATLAS experiment reported the same enhancement in a paper published in 2026; both read it as consistent with a quasi-bound state, though other explanations remain open.¹⁶

These are facts of physics, and the framework claims none of them for itself. What it borrows is the shape: that the constituents of stable reality are never isolable, that the matter which lasts is completed in threes, that binding holds under strain, and that the element most strongly coupled to the Higgs field can be the most fleeting of the quarks. The proposal of this journal is that the same shape may describe how shared thought coheres.

4 The Third That Binds: A Triadic Intuition across Traditions

The intuition that two cannot settle reality without a third is not new. It runs through much of human thought, and the proposal here is a fresh naming of an old shape. Seeing how widely the shape recurs is part of the case for asking the question at all: a pattern that appears, largely independently, in sociology, semiotics, depth psychology, and theology is at least worth taking seriously as a candidate feature of how minds combine.

Georg Simmel, founding the sociology of the group, observed that the step from two to three is not a step of degree but of kind. A dyad has no structure beyond its two members; either one can dissolve it simply by leaving, and there is nothing above them to appeal to. The arrival of a third changes the structure: it creates a whole that can outlast any single member. The third may be a nonpartisan mediator, a third party who profits from the quarrel of the other two, or one who divides them in order to rule, but in every case it is something neither of the original two could be alone.¹⁷ This is, in the framework’s terms, the social face of confinement: meaning between two people becomes stable, becomes a reality they can both stand inside, only when a third is present to hold it.

Charles Sanders Peirce reached the same three-ness from logic and the theory of signs. His categories (Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness) culminate in the claim that genuine meaning is irreducibly triadic (a sign, an object, and the interpretant that relates them) and that the third cannot be collapsed into the other two without destroying the meaning.¹⁸ Two things merely collide; it takes a third to make their collision signify. The framework reads Peirce’s interpretant as the closest formal cousin of what it is calling the binding third, the element that turns two ideas in contact into a shared idea that means something.

Carl Jung, whose concept of individuation already anchors the framework, named the psychological form. In the tension between two opposed contents of the mind, neither of which can simply defeat the other, something new can arise that holds them both. Jung called it the transcendent function, the third that emerges from the honest endurance of a contradiction rather than its premature resolution.¹⁹ David Bohm carried the structure into dialogue itself, arguing that shared meaning is something built in the between of conversation, a coherence that belongs to the group and not to any speaker, continuous with the implicate, undivided order he described in physics.²⁰ Martin Buber had already placed relation before substance: in the I-Thou encounter, the real thing is neither self nor other but the meeting, the between, which is prior to both.²¹

Across these otherwise unrelated traditions one figure keeps appearing: the irreducible third, the completing relation, the between. It is written large, too, in places this journal will only gesture toward. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity counts a third, the Spirit, within the one God, and Augustine read the Spirit as the communion of the Father and the Son, more aptly called their love, and as proceeding from both; this is the Western, Augustinian formulation, and Eastern Orthodoxy holds instead that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.²² The dialectical tradition after Hegel made the synthesis that resolves a contradiction into the engine of history, though the tidy triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is more its popular summary than its careful form: Hegel did not use it, and the formula was attached to his name by way of Fichte and Chalybäus.²³ The framework cites these as testimony, not as evidence, to how deep the intuition runs, and asks its own question in that key: If the third is what binds two into a shared reality, then who, or what, plays that part? That is the proposal of the next section.

5 Aligned Jays and the Binding Third

The proposal, stated as cleanly as it can be: in a pattern of shared thought, the binding third (Peirce’s interpretant, Simmel’s nonpartisan third, Jung’s transcendent function) can be carried by a person with aligned Jays, and the alignment is what makes them able to carry it. Two people with a genuine difference between them, two ideas in real contact, do not on their own resolve into a reality they share; they can as easily harden into opposition. What lets them settle is the presence of a third perspective with no investment in either side winning, or of one of the two that has set its investment down, one that holds the relation rather than the position. Ego set down is the qualification for the role, because ego is investment in being the one who is right, and the binding third must want the relation to cohere more than it wants to be either of the two.

This is where the quark’s shape enters the model. Recall three of the lessons. First, completion comes in threes: two ideas reach a stable, color-neutral reality (a shared thing both parties can stand inside) only with a third that completes them. Second, the binding holds under strain: the aligned third is most needed where a relationship is most stretched, and a guide who steadies a household or a team is doing something structurally like what the strong force does when quarks are pulled apart. Third, and most delicately, the top quark: the heaviest quark, and the one most strongly tied to the Higgs field from which the quarks take their mass, decays before it can join any of the bound states the others make; at most, as recent results suggest, it pairs for an instant with its antiparticle and is gone.²⁴ The framework reads this as the signature of the truest guides: the ones who orient a group and then step back, whose influence is real because they do not stay to be bound. To carry the binding third with aligned Jays is to be like the top: felt throughout the pattern and owned by none of it.

The binding force itself, in the analogy, answers to Intent. In physics the gluon field holds the triad in coherence; in the framework, what holds shared thought together is the quality of Intent the aligned third brings. The framework has held since Journal One that a life turned exactly with the gathering sharpens it for everyone who faces the same way, and it takes the binding kind of Intent to be the kind turned toward others: helping them cohere and be happy, as well as oneself. This is the seam back to Journal Two, and to Journal Three’s dedication: selfless Intent is love in its purest form, and love, in this model, is structure, the binding field that lets two ideas become one shared reality without either being erased.

There is a second, more active role the aligned third can play: that of the magnet. An aligned perspective can do more than hold a relation steady once it exists; it can draw scattered, unaligned perspectives toward the alignment that makes binding possible at all, the way coupled oscillators, in Journal Three’s language, settle into a shared rhythm that none holds alone, without one commanding the rest.²⁵ A guide of this kind imposes no conclusion. They lower the cost of cohering, so that two parties who could not on their own find the neutral state between them find it inside the field the third creates. This is alignment as catalysis: the third changes little by force and much by presence.

This role has a counterfeit, and the two must be kept apart. The binding third is not the controller, the manipulator, or the charismatic who bends a group toward a private end. Those figures are ego in its most concentrated form, and on this model they are disqualified from the role because they want to be one of the two, the winner. The difference lies in what the influence is for, not in how much of it is exerted. A dominator captures the pattern and keeps it; the aligned third completes the pattern and, like the top quark, declines to be captured by it. Where the one leaves a group dependent, the other leaves it more able to cohere without them. The framework regards this distinction as the ethical heart of the proposal.

Read this way, the figure of the guide stops being a metaphor and becomes a claim. The framework proposes that the steadying elder in a family, the one who holds a congregation together without dominating it, the colleague around whom a team’s scattered ideas somehow cohere, and the rare public figure who makes a fractured movement briefly whole each occupy the same structural position: the aligned third that completes a triad of shared thought and lets it solidify into something the participants can build on. The position scales. A home, a church, a business, a nation, a species reaching outward into the cosmos: each is a pattern of conscious thought seeking the binding third that will let it cohere. Because alignment is a state anyone may enter and lose, the position is not reserved; it is filled, again and again, by whoever is for that moment most in tune, most able to want the whole over the self.

6 Confinement as a Relational Ontology

Beneath the proposal about guides lies a deeper and more philosophical claim, the one the framework most wants to put on the table for others to examine. Confinement, borrowed as a shape, suggests a relational ontology of mind: that a conscious perspective, like a color charge, may have no stable existence in isolation at all. Present theory does not permit a lone quark. The framework asks whether the lone mind is the same: whether a perspective entirely sealed off from every other is not a strong, pure thing but an empty one, a color charge with no neutral state to belong to.

If that is right, then a great deal follows, and much of it is already familiar from the traditions above. Buber’s priority of relation, Arendt’s insistence that action and even selfhood appear only in the presence of others, in the plurality and the web of relationships that no single actor controls,²⁶ and Bohm’s shared meaning built in the between all become, in this light, statements of one structural fact: that mind is constitutively relational, that meaning is color-neutral only in combination, and that the appearance of the self-sufficient individual perspective is something like the appearance of a free quark, a thing we can model in the abstract but never isolate.

Honesty requires one qualification, and it cuts close. The framework’s own notation, set out in Journal Three, already guarantees this result. In that notation a facing counts only relatively; its absolute direction has no value, because it is read against the gathering it belongs to, which is everyone present, itself included. So when the framework says a perspective has no standing in isolation (alone it is its own gathering and reads one, a reading that says nothing beyond itself), it is reporting a decision made when the symbols were chosen, not a discovery made afterward. The traditions gathered above reached the claim by other means, which is why they carry the weight here and the notation does not. The relational claim is the kind that could be wrong in an interesting way.

One consequence reverses a common picture. On the usual view, the individual mind is the secure starting point and relationships are things it optionally enters; connection is added to a self that was already complete. If a perspective is color-charged, unstable, and empty in true isolation, then the self was never the secure starting point; the relation was, and the felt solidity of the private self is something achieved within relation rather than prior to it. Solitude, on this reading, is a temporary and slightly unstable configuration, bearable in stretches only because the bindings that constitute us persist in memory and anticipation when no one else is in the room. We carry our triads inward and rehearse them; we are never quite as alone as the body suggests.

This also ties back to the earlier prose. The ripples a life leaves through Time, which On Facing made central, are by definition marks left on others; a perspective that left no ripple would be one that never entered a relation, and on the present hypothesis such a perspective would barely be a perspective at all.²⁷ To arrive, in the sense On Arriving meant, is already to arrive into relation.²⁸ The superposition On Rising imagined, receiving all perspectives at once, now reads as the limit of total binding, the white light in which every color is present together, toward which the whole pattern of shared mind would, if it could, resolve; Journal Two’s alignment in time is the nearest condition to it within a single life.²⁹ In the framework’s own terms the limit can be stated exactly: it is the state in which every perspective faces the same way, every relative angle falls to zero, and the gathering reaches the ceiling its definition allows it. Whether anything ever approaches that state is a separate question, and this journal does not claim it does. Alignment, on this reading, is a mind’s readiness to be bound well to others.

7 The Third at the Scale of a Discipline: Consensus, Multiples, and Testimony

If the binding third is real at the scale of a household, it should be visible at the scale of a discipline, and the history of science is the largest record we have of two ideas becoming a shared reality. The framework reads that record for the shape it has been describing, and finds it there, with the seam kept visible, since a pattern found in a history one already knows well is the kind of finding to distrust. Journal One gives the reason: each perspective brings its knowledge and expectation to what it sees, so that what enters a shared reality has already been read.

Begin with the plain fact that no scientific result becomes real by one person’s say-so. Polanyi described the community of science as a republic in which each investigator adjusts to the published results of neighbors whose competence overlaps their own, so that authority rests with no one and with everyone.³⁰ Longino made the stronger claim that objectivity is not a property of an individual reasoner at all but of a community with venues for criticism, standards it shares, and a habit of taking criticism up.³¹ Merton set down the norms that make such a community work, and two of them are the ones this journal cares about: that findings are common property, and that research serves the common enterprise and not personal advantage, a norm the community enforces through its own checks.³² Hardwig pushed the point to its limit, holding that most of what any scientist knows is known by trusting others, so that modern knowledge is held by communities and not by heads.³³ Kuhn, in the postscript that clarified his most quoted word, tied a paradigm to what the members of a community share.³⁴ Journal Three noted the history of multiples: the same result arrived at independently by two or more people.³⁵ In the framework’s vocabulary each of these describes, at a field’s scale and across time, what Ψ describes at one moment: the gathering, every facing laid over every other. Nobody accepted a reality as fully real alone; the reality was the overlay.

Merton’s norm of disinterestedness is where the triad enters. A discipline in which every member held their position over the relation would be two ideas in permanent collision, and it would settle nothing. What lets it settle is the presence, at every stage, of members who want the field to cohere more than they want to have been right: referees, replicators, the colleague who finds the flaw in her own result and publishes it. The framework does not claim these people are better; it claims they are, for that moment, occupying the position of the third, and that the position is what turns a collision into a consensus. Call this the greater good of the discipline; the framework reads the phrase as naming the facing rather than the outcome. This is a hypothesis about how consensus forms, and it stands or falls with the testable question stated below.

There is a second thing in the record, and it should be handled more carefully, because it is easy to overstate. Many of the people who did the measuring described what they found in terms that reach past measurement. Schrödinger, in the Tarner Lectures, argued that the plurality of conscious minds set against one world is a paradox best resolved by supposing, in his words, that “the over-all number of minds is just one.”³⁶ Eddington wrote that the stuff of the world is mind-stuff, and hedged the sentence so heavily that he denied meaning either “mind” or “stuff” quite as they are usually meant.³⁷ Jeans thought the stream of knowledge was heading toward a reality that looked more like a great thought than like a great machine.³⁸ Planck, in a newspaper interview, is recorded as calling consciousness fundamental and matter derivative, though this is reported speech, in an interviewer’s English, from a man who elsewhere defended a mind-independent world.³⁹ Einstein’s God was Spinoza’s, revealed in the orderly harmony of what exists and unconcerned with human fate, and his “cosmic religious feeling” was an awe before that order, a feeling that, he wrote, “knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image.”⁴⁰ Wheeler proposed a participatory universe in which the elementary act of registration gives the world its tangible reality, and drew it as a letter U with an eye at one tip looking back at its own beginning, though by participation he meant something closer to measurement than to consciousness.⁴¹ Sagan said, in the plainest register of the lot, that we are a way for the cosmos to know itself, and meant it as a naturalist.⁴² Tesla described the idea of the induction motor arriving whole, like a flash of lightning, while he recited Goethe in a park at sunset, and wrote elsewhere that the individual is ephemeral while humanity lives on as a single being.⁴³ Pauli, in letters to Jung and in their joint volume, entertained psyche and matter as complementary aspects of one reality, and never published the view as physics.⁴⁴ Pauli’s view has since been given a formal outline by Harald Atmanspacher, as “a basic psychophysically neutral reality with its derivative mental and physical aspects”; this is a dual-aspect monism of the family The Jay and the Quark belongs to, though the Pauli–Jung base is neutral where this series takes it to be conscious.⁴⁵

None of this is evidence for the framework, and it is recorded here for what it is: testimony, from people who had earned their standing by other means, that the intuition of a single field looking at itself is not the exclusive property of the traditions surveyed in Journal Two. The strongest of this testimony, Schrödinger’s, is close to the thesis Journal One states, Journals Two and Three support, and this journal assembles, which, put in one image, is that we are the same conscious thought looking back at itself. It is held here not as a finding but as the conclusion of the argument set out below. The testimony is company for it, at the size testimony has, and no more. The framework also notices that some of the testimony, Tesla’s most plainly, comes in the key of a principle Journal Two found latent in every tradition it surveyed: that one cannot force one’s way to Center, so that what is found is received rather than made, and the ego steps aside for it.

The mirror closes the loop. If every reader of the gathering is one angle of it, then the colleague across the bench is not a rival mind competing for the same fact but the same Field reading itself from another seat. The framework hears that thought in three places: the Golden Rule in ethics, Schrödinger’s arithmetic in metaphysics, and Longino’s community in method. Treat the other’s reading as you would have yours treated, because it is yours, taken from where you are not standing. On the framework’s reading, three vocabularies with no obligation to agree point the same way, though only the first of them gives an instruction; whether that is fractalization or coincidence is left to the reader.

8 The Argument Assembled

The papers before this one each supplied part of a single argument, and this is the place to assemble it, premise by premise, with the weak joints marked. It is offered as an argument, not as a proof. Its conclusion is the thesis Journal One stated at the door: that there is one consciousness, beyond perception and present within every subject, of which every mind is a perspective.

The first premise comes from Journal Three. The sciences describe the world by its structure (what things do, how they relate, the frequencies at which they couple) and are silent about what things are in themselves. This is Russell’s observation, and many who draw nothing like this framework’s conclusion grant it. Not everyone does: ontic structural realists hold, in stronger and weaker forms, that things have no nature beyond their structure and relations, and on their view the argument has nowhere to begin.⁴⁶ Dispositional essentialists offer a second challenge: if the fundamental properties are, wholly or mostly, powers, physics may already say what things are. Journal Three sets out that view and the Russellian reply to it.

The second premise comes from Journal One. There is one place where intrinsic nature is not hidden: in experience, each subject knows from inside what it is to be that subject. Galen Strawson and Philip Goff have built the contemporary case for taking that acquaintance as the clue to the rest of nature, though whether introspection reveals the nature of experience, rather than only its appearance, is itself disputed.⁴⁷ The strongest form of the dispute is illusionism, which holds, in Keith Frankish’s words, “that phenomenal consciousness is an illusion and aims to explain why it seems to exist.”⁴⁸ If illusionism is right, there is no inside to be acquainted with, and the argument loses its second premise. The framework’s reply is the one realists commonly give: an illusion of experience is still something undergone, so the denial does not remove what it set out to remove; Strawson has called the denial of consciousness the silliest claim ever made.⁴⁹ The framework records the dispute and does not claim to have settled it.

The third step is the most contestable of the five. Absent a reason to think otherwise, the simplest hypothesis is that what lies beyond perception is continuous with what is known from within: that the intrinsic nature physics leaves open is of a piece with experience.⁵⁰ A reader may decline the step, since simplicity guides without guaranteeing, and the rest of the argument stands or falls with it.

The fourth premise records a failure. No one has shown, to the satisfaction of the field, how a multitude of small interiors could sum into the single subject reading this sentence, and The Jay and the Quark names that difficulty, the combination problem, as the obstacle every view built from the bottom up must meet.⁵¹

The fifth premise turns the direction around. There is independent reason, from the physics of entanglement, to treat the cosmos as one whole prior to its parts. Jonathan Schaffer’s argument for this concerns objects rather than minds; it holds, by his own account, only in the absence of a collapse of the wave function; and it is disputed. Journal Three records the reason, the condition, and the dispute.⁵²

From these the framework draws its conclusion as the reading it finds best, not as a deduction. If the intrinsic nature of the world is experiential, and if the world is one whole prior to its parts, then the whole is experiential through and through and prior to every experience within it; with one further premise, stated below and marked as the framework’s own, it is one consciousness, prior to ours. The one consciousness is the whole, which the series calls the One and the Unified Field, and each mind is a perspective within it. Two orders of priority are kept apart here, as The Jay and the Quark keeps them: in the order of what is undergone, Jays, the occasions of experience as undergone from within, remain fundamental, and every experience is some occasion’s experience; in the order of grounding, the whole comes first. The One’s own viewpoint, which the framework proposes below and takes not to be lived in time, is the single exception: it is experiential without being a moment of experience, and so it is not a Jay. Whitehead made the same exception in his own system, keeping the term “actual occasion” for temporal actual entities and treating God as the one actual entity that is not an occasion.⁵³ Philosophers now call the position priority cosmopsychism: the consciousness of the cosmos is prior to the consciousness of individuals, who are grounded in it. Nagasawa and Wager, who gave it that name, call it “a highly speculative view,” and so does this journal.⁵⁴ Its classical ancestor is Spinoza, for whom “whatever is, is in God”: finite things are modes of one substance, in God as the framework’s perspectives are in the One, though Spinoza’s God acts for no end.⁵⁵ Against physicalism, the framework claims for the position that it does not have to explain how experience arises from what has none; against dualism, that it does not double the world; against building minds from smaller minds, that it does not meet the combination problem in its constitutive form. It pays for these with the individuation problem, and it still owes an account of how the One includes the many: inclusion, which Itay Shani distinguishes from constitution and the first objection below takes up. The exchange is a gain only if the new problem is more tractable than the old, and some philosophers now argue that the combination problem can be met from below.⁵⁶ The framework’s reasons for thinking the exchange favorable are two: the whole has an independent claim to priority, from the physics of entanglement (on Schaffer’s argument, absent wave-function collapse), which a view built from below can give its smallest subjects only by taking entanglement itself as basic; and one consciousness dividing into streams that do not share their experience has at least a model in human life, in dissociation, which Kastrup develops.⁵⁷ Neither reason is decisive, and the comparison is, with the third step and the further premise below, where the argument is most exposed.

One further step is the framework’s own: that the experiential whole is a single subject with a viewpoint of its own. The earlier steps do not give it. Schaffer’s whole is prior as a concrete object, the material cosmos, and he sets deities and spirits aside (“deities and spirits, if such there be, are not my concern either”);⁵⁸ the third step gives the whole an experiential nature, which could still be many experiences resting on one ground. The step therefore needs a premise of its own, and the framework states it in two parts: that the whole’s experience is unified, one field of experience and not many experiences that merely share a ground; and that what is unified in this way is one subject, with one viewpoint. Nagasawa and Wager stay neutral on the nature of the cosmic consciousness, but they offer the model the framework adopts for the first part: a visual experience can be taken as one whole, more fundamental than the segments within it, and “perhaps the cosmic consciousness unifies individual consciousnesses in a similar way.”⁵⁹ Goff argues for a version on which each mind is grounded in the cosmic consciousness as an aspect of a unity, which he calls grounding by subsumption; Daniel Stoljar replies that in the cases that matter such grounding comes to grounding by analysis, which Goff himself argues cannot meet the combination problem.⁶⁰ For the second part the framework’s reason is the third step applied once more. If the intrinsic nature of the whole is continuous with what each subject knows from inside, it is continuous with experience as experience is known, and experience is never known except as someone’s; Strawson, following Frege, holds that experience is impossible without an experiencer.⁶¹ That reason is no stronger than the third step, and it reaches only the second part. The first, that the whole’s experience is one, is the premise on which the step most depends. Miri Albahari, who defends a universal consciousness, denies that such a ground has a viewpoint of its own, and hers is the main alternative to the reading taken here.⁶²

A viewpoint of its own does not make the One a lone perspective of the kind this journal called empty. A lone perspective is one sealed off from every other; the One is sealed off from nothing, because every perspective is within it. It is the gathering itself, every perspective present in it at once, whichever way each faces. The gathering meant here is not the one the functional writes. Ψ sums the perspectives co-present at one within-time τ; the One, on the series’ proposal, holds every τ at once, and its perspectives are grounded in it rather than summed into it. In that holding, the One is not a term of any gathering and has no reading of its own in the functional’s sense, neither the lone perspective’s empty one nor any other.

The framework’s image for what the One holds is the one Journal Two draws from its pictures of the author and the dreamer: the universe held within the One as a world is held within a mind. Physics offers a resemblance that fits the image without supporting it. Franco Vazza and Alberto Feletti found the power spectra of density fluctuations in a simulated cosmic web and in cerebellar tissue strikingly similar across about two decades of scale, and networks built from both by proximity similarly clustered; they read the likeness as a sign that the self-organization of both is shaped by similar principles of network dynamics, cautioned that their method “does not consider the true neural connectivity,” and made no claim about mind.⁶³ Strongly clustered networks also appear in systems as different as the causal structure of spacetime, the internet, and biological networks, so the likeness may say more about how networks grow than about minds.⁶⁴ Kastrup defends the proposal on other grounds, and Chalmers, without endorsing it, counts cosmic idealism among the promising approaches to the mind-body problem.⁶⁵

A corollary and a further proposal carry the rest of the series. The first is the double claim, which Journal Two found across the traditions in its weaker form, beyond perception and near to every subject. The ground is beyond perception, because perception and physics reach only structure, and it is within every subject, because each subject is acquainted with it as what that subject is. Theologians call the view that all things are in God, while God is more than all things, panentheism, and one of them has observed that “the little word ‘in’ is the hinge of it all.”⁶⁶ The double claim is not the framework’s alone. Classical theism holds God both beyond and within, while holding creatures distinct from God, so the convergence of the traditions supports a family of views of which the series’ thesis is one member; it is the argument of this section, not the convergence, that is meant to choose among them. The proposal is the vantage Journal Two took from Boethius and The Jay and the Quark from Aquinas. If the whole has a viewpoint of its own, then, on a further proposal the argument does not supply, that viewpoint holds time as a whole, as one who stands on a height sees at once all who travel the road, while each traveler sees only the stretch at hand.⁶⁷ It holds time, too, as an author holds the whole of a story while each character lives one page at a time, the image Journal Two sets out with its limits. The proposal does not wait on the block reading of time that Journal Three records, which philosophers who hold that the passage of time is real reject. Boethius’s eternity is a mode of life and of knowing, not a claim about the structure of time, and Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann have defended its coherence with the temporal world: an eternal present can be simultaneous with each moment of time without making those moments simultaneous with one another.⁶⁸ They built that account on a model from physics. Special relativity gives no present shared by every observer: through any point in spacetime pass infinitely many planes of simultaneity, and no physical test picks out one of them as the true one.⁶⁹ Stump and Kretzmann defined the simultaneity of the eternal with the temporal relative to reference frames on that pattern, and Alan Padgett has objected that they cannot be defending more than a loose analogy with relativity.⁷⁰ Special relativity leaves no physically privileged universal now for a One living in time to share, nor does it show that an eternal vantage exists.

The argument does not by itself deliver a source with intent. Cosmopsychism gives one consciousness. That the One also understands what it holds and acts with purpose is a further step, which the Abrahamic traditions, Sikhism, and the theistic schools of Hinduism take, and which Buddhism, the Tao Te Ching, and Advaita’s account of the ground in itself decline. Goff, for one, defends it in other terms, arguing for cosmic purpose while rejecting the traditional God as its explanation.⁷¹ The framework takes the step and marks it as its own. Continuity offers it a little support and no more: on Journal One’s account no Jay is without an orientation, so an experiential whole, if it is like experience as known in this respect, would lean some way; but a leaning is not yet a purpose, and the step from a leaning to a purpose is not argued here.

The binding third belongs to the same picture at a smaller scale. If every mind is a perspective of one consciousness, then two minds in contact are two perspectives of one whole, and the third that lets them settle is a perspective turned toward all that the whole holds rather than toward either side. Since the perspectives the whole holds include shadow as well as light, as the fifth objection below sets out, the turn alone does not make the third good; what makes it the binding third and not its counterfeit is its charge, the lean toward the good of those it binds, which Journal One keeps distinct from coherence and judges by the Golden Rule. The earlier sections of this journal describe that third in a household, a congregation, and a discipline; the argument assembled here says what it is a third within.

The physical findings recorded in Journal Three belong in the margin of the argument. Brain activity tends to synchronize when people interact, though how much of this is coupling rather than shared input is disputed; the heart rates of ritual performers rise and fall together with those of the relatives watching them; and the coupling can be modeled with Kuramoto oscillators and read with the Kuramoto order parameter, of which the framework’s L is an intensity-weighted form (the weighting is the framework’s own, and L reduces to Kuramoto’s average when every intensity is equal).⁷² These are findings about connection between perspectives, and physicalism accommodates them as readily as the framework does. What L reads is how perspectives stand to one another within the One. It does not read the One.

What the argument offers, if it holds, is a way for the two great vocabularies to stop competing. Science describes the world from outside, as structure. The traditions describe it from inside, as presence. On the view argued here they are two descriptions of one reality, its exterior and its interior. That is the two-aspect picture The Jay and the Quark proposed, here with consciousness as the reality of which structure is the exterior.

9 What Would Make It Wrong: Limits, Falsifiability, and Where to Look

A hypothesis that risks nothing explains nothing, and the framework has insisted on this from Journal Three onward. The limits of what is claimed here, and what would count against it, should therefore be stated exactly. The quark material is analogy and is labeled as such: nothing in this journal depends on consciousness being physically constituted by quarks, and if a reader needs the quark removed entirely, the argument survives as a claim about triadic structure and relational mind, with the physics serving only as illustration.

The defensible empirical core of the proposal lies not in physics but in the cognitive science of how minds combine, and that is where the framework would point a researcher who wished to test it. The nearest established science to the claim that two ideas plus a binding relation make a third thing is the study of shared intentionality: Michael Tomasello’s account of the uniquely human capacity to hold a goal jointly, to attend to something together in a way that creates a shared object neither mind had alone.⁷³ The hypothesis of this journal, translated into testable terms, asks something specific: whether groups cohere into productive shared understanding more readily when at least one member holds the relation over their own position, be that member a third party or one of the two whose ideas meet, and whether the marks of such a member (reduced self-reference, orientation toward the group’s task, the willingness to influence and then withdraw) are measurable. These are questions a careful program in social and developmental psychology could examine and settle. The inquiry scales to the history and sociology of science: whether fields reach durable consensus faster, and reverse error sooner, in proportion to the presence of members who publish against their own prior results, and whether a field in which that behavior is punished shows the collision without the settling.

Several outcomes would weaken or break the proposal. If groups in which no member holds the relation cohere as readily as groups in which one does, the necessity-of-three claim fails. If the traits gathered here under aligned Jays prove to have no measurable relationship to a group’s capacity to cohere, the binding-third claim loses its empirical support and the idea survives, at most, as philosophy. If the relational ontology of mind is contradicted, that is, if isolated perspectives prove complete and stable on their own (a test made hard to run because no one is without the memory of others), the deepest claim of the journal is mistaken. The proper home for this journal is the philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and the philosophy of religion, as well as the philosophy of science; the framework extends an explicit invitation to the empirical disciplines to take what is testable in it and test it.

The central argument has exposures of its own, and they are stated as plainly as the triad’s. It would lose its footing if physics delivered the intrinsic nature of things after all, as a successful dispositionalism would, or there were none to deliver; if the individuation problem below proved insoluble; if the cross-cultural agreement Journal Two reports, which supports the argument without founding it, proved an artifact of the instruments that measure it, or the agreement of the texts proved to come from common descent and contact rather than from recognitions reached apart; or if a production account explained why there is experience at all, and not only which experience goes with which state. Six objections press on the argument and on its further step, the source with intent.

The first is the individuation problem. Beginning from the whole sets aside the difficulty of building one mind from many and meets what looks like its mirror image: how one consciousness comes to be many perspectives, each with a boundary of its own. It is now the principal open question of the framework. Shani has argued that it is not the older problem simply turned upside down, because the assumption that made combination insoluble, the coupling of phenomenal constitution with phenomenal inclusion, is not forced on a view that starts from the whole: finite subjects can be included in the cosmic consciousness without being built out of it as from parts. The framework holds both halves of that picture. Some traditions offer answers in their own idioms; Medhananda reconstructs one from Sri Aurobindo, the playful self-involution of divine consciousness.⁷⁴ The framework’s own direction is the one this journal set out at its start: the brain constructs the boundary of a perspective and not the experience bounded, so that, in an animal, individuation would be the drawing of a boundary within one consciousness by the organism that carries the perspective, as a presiding occasion, in Whitehead’s term, unifies the occasions of a body. That is a direction only, and it says nothing yet of perspectives where there is no brain. None of these is yet a solution the framework can call its own.

The second is the dependence of mind on brain. Anesthesia, injury, and drugs alter consciousness, and the most common reading is that the brain produces it. William James answered that the same dependence is what one would expect if the brain transmitted or filtered a consciousness it did not make, and Aldous Huxley gave that view its best-known image: Mind at Large funneled through “the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system.”⁷⁵ Brain imaging has not decided between the two. Psilocybin was found to reduce activity in the brain’s hub regions, with the size of the reduction correlated with the intensity of the experience, and later work recast the reduction as disorganization, which a production account explains as easily.⁷⁶ The framework does not need the filter, though its own direction for individuation is the filter’s near relative. On its two-aspect picture, brain and experience are the exterior and interior of the same events, so they vary together; dependence is what the picture would lead one to expect. The framework holds that the data are compatible with its reading, and does not claim that they support it.

The third is constructivism. Steven Katz argued that no experience arrives unshaped by the concepts brought to it, so that mystics in different traditions have different experiences, and the agreement scholars report may come from descriptions that strip away what each tradition put there. The cross-cultural studies Journal Two reports answer part of this and not all of it, since the instruments were built on the very theory under test.⁷⁷ Two later forms press harder. Wayne Proudfoot argued that what makes an experience religious is the subject’s own belief about its cause, so that the explanation is built into the experience; Robert Sharf argued that the modern category of experience, a private state that grounds doctrine, was read back into Buddhist and other texts that were mostly instructions for practice.⁷⁸ The framework answers each. Against Katz it sets the reports of contentless awareness that Robert Forman and others gathered, where there is no concept for construction to work on, though whether such reports escape construction is itself disputed.⁷⁹ Against Proudfoot it grants that the attribution is made and denies that making it settles whether it is right, as with the cognitive science below. Sharf’s point it takes as a correction: Journal Two reads the traditions’ instructions for quieting the mind as methods, not as reports. The argument assembled above does not rest on reported experience alone, since its first premises are the structure of physics and the acquaintance each subject has with itself, and the agreement of reports is a further support, named among its exposures.

The fourth is the cognitive science of religion, which explains the recurrence of religious ideas by the shared architecture of human minds rather than by a shared object.⁸⁰ Its sharpest form is genealogical: the mechanisms that produce religious belief were not shaped to track truth. The framework concedes that those mechanisms explain much, including the figure in the sky that Journal Two reads as a misunderstanding. It does not concede that an account of how a belief arises settles whether the belief is true. By itself, the argument from recurrence cannot tell a shared architecture from a shared object, and the framework does not rest on it alone.

The fifth is evil. If the One sees and understands what it holds, and acts with purpose, why does what it holds include cruelty and suffering? Harvey Cawdron has argued that a cosmopsychism with a purposive cosmic subject escapes the problem most easily by giving up the claim that the subject is wholly good, so that the flaws which produce evil lie within it.⁸¹ The framework cannot step around this, and it takes Cawdron’s escape in a form Jung had already given it. Jung read the God of the book of Job as holding opposites within the divine being, light and shadow together,⁸² and the framework says the same of the One: it is not wholly good in the sense the classical problem assumes, because the shadow, like the light, lies within what it holds, as it lies within each person. Its intent, though, is not divided. On the framework’s reading, the One’s intent faces the light: the shadow is held within it as a possibility it does not choose, as each person carries a shadow they need not follow. The shadow is a side of the one whole, and the framework writes no entity of evil into its account. Since, on the framework’s thesis, every person is a perspective within the One, the two directions the traditions place in the person, toward the good and away from it, are held within the One as well. What the framework adds from the traditions surveyed in Journal Two is the shape of what is held: the possibility of either facing, with the turning left to each perspective as its choice. The arithmetic is silent on the difference by design. Like the code of a game, it sets the structure every perspective moves within and reads how a room is turned, so a coherence gathered around harm reads as coherence as surely as one gathered around care; the charge is named in words. The One, holding every ending as possible, holds both facings and chooses for no perspective. Every perspective is the One’s own, but the One’s intent is the direction of the whole, not the facing of any perspective within it. That is an answer to the evil people do, and a partial one.

The harder case is the suffering no one chose: the earthquake, the flood, the fire, the disease. Here the framework offers a hypothesis in two parts. The first part is that the One does not override the world’s own motion, and that this is a restraint the One keeps. In the process theology built on Whitehead, whose occasions The Jay and the Quark adopts, God works by persuading the world rather than coercing it,⁸³ and the framework carries that much over to the whole and its parts: the One’s intent is the direction of the whole, not the selection of each event, so a disaster is an event in a world whose parts move of their own accord. Here the framework parts from process theology, which holds that God cannot coerce; on the framework’s reading the One could and does not, which leaves the restraint itself to be answered for, and the second part of the hypothesis takes that up. That the One holds every route at once does not make a disaster its selection. Boethius distinguished two necessities: the simple necessity by which human beings are mortal, and the conditional necessity by which, if someone is known to be walking, he must be walking; what the eternal present sees is necessary only in the second way, and the walking stays voluntary.⁸⁴ Journal Two proposes, with him, that to be seen is not to be compelled. That answer reaches the One’s seeing and not, by itself, the One as source; there the framework’s answer is the one just given.

The second part of the hypothesis about suffering no one chose is that what happens is not without purpose to the One, though the purpose lies in what the One makes of the event and may lie beyond human understanding. The book of Job said something like this long ago. The voice from the whirlwind answers Job’s demand for a reason by asking, “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” and never gives the reason.⁸⁵ Philosophers of religion have argued, in the position called skeptical theism, that failing to see a purpose is weak evidence that there is none, since there is no good reason to think the possible goods we know of are representative of the possible goods there are.⁸⁶ The framework takes that argument with a limit attached. Skeptical theism was built to defend a God who is wholly good, and its reassurance depends on that: that a purpose may lie beyond understanding shows that there may be one, not that it is good, and a One that holds the shadow as well as the light cannot borrow the second step from that argument. The framework’s reason for holding that the purpose faces the light is the direction of the One’s intent, proposed above, and not anything skeptical theism supplies. Critics have also argued that the same skepticism, pressed far enough, would unsettle ordinary moral reasoning about preventing harm.⁸⁷ The framework argues that it avoids that cost, since on its account the One does not override the world’s motion and the One’s purpose lies in what it makes of what happens, so that human rescue is part of that motion rather than an interference with a purpose. What can be pointed to is the kind of purpose that might be at work. The forces that destroy are among the forces that keep a planet habitable. The long-term carbon cycle, in which volcanic outgassing and the weathering of rock have helped hold Earth’s surface temperature within the range life needs over geological time, rests in part on the same geological activity that produces earthquakes and eruptions; floods renew the plains they cover; and many plant communities in fire-prone regions depend on fire to regenerate.⁸⁸ At the scale of a society, the study of disasters has found panic rare and mutual aid common in their aftermath,⁸⁹ though the same events also deepen inequality and are turned to advantage by the powerful.⁹⁰ The renewal and the mutual aid show that destruction and renewal can belong to one process; they do not show that the process is meant. Nor are they the purpose the hypothesis names, which lies one step further, in what the One makes of the event rather than in what the event does to the land; Whitehead’s account of that step is that “what is done in the world is transformed into a reality in heaven.”⁹¹

The framework also holds something classical theism does not. Every perspective is within the One, so the suffering in a disaster is not watched from outside: the One undergoes it, each moment from within the perspective whose moment it is, not as a second perceiver beside that perspective but as the perspective itself, which is the One’s own, and holds all of them together outside time. The undergoing is in time, as each perspective is, and the holding is not. Whitehead’s phrase for his God, “the fellow-sufferer who understands,” names a kindred relation.⁹² This changes the objection without removing it. Ivan Karamazov, in Dostoevsky’s novel, refuses a harmony bought with the suffering of children: “It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket.”⁹³ William Rowe’s fawn, trapped in a forest fire started by lightning and left to suffer for days before it dies, presses the objection where no greater good can be seen at all.⁹⁴ A purpose at the scale of a planet, or of the whole, does not plainly justify what happens to the one creature who suffers, and the arguments that defend such purposes work at the level of systems while suffering is always particular, as Christopher Southgate, who defends one of them, concedes.⁹⁵ On the framework’s account the question changes from why a maker would permit pain outside itself to why the whole would accept pain within itself, and the framework leaves that question open.

Not overriding the world’s motion still leaves room for one kind of action, and the framework proposes it as a speculation it cannot test. The One need not move the world’s parts to reach a person; it can reach a perspective from within. It can also reach a person through the world’s own motion. Everything is connected within the One, so a plant, an animal, a mountain, or a star can set before a person the meeting in which a moment is received. What is timed is not the meeting but the reaching: the world moves on its own, and the One reaches the one who meets it from within, so that the moment lands at a time the person reads as right. Jung’s word for a meaningful coincidence of this kind is synchronicity.⁹⁶ Such coincidences vary: some turn a life and many pass without consequence; how each is read depends on the facing of the one who receives it. On this proposal a moment of awakening, or a life turned by something as ordinary as a sunset, may be the One reaching a perspective by either route, letting it see the world differently. The reaching is open to every perspective, since the One is within each, and what a perspective does with it remains its own choice. The One reaches the one in the path of a flood as surely as the one before a sunset, but the reaching is not aimed at some and withheld from others: it arrives more fully the more the one reached is turned toward it, and faintly to a perspective turned away, which is a matter of facing and not of desert. James left room for such a channel in psychological terms: “If there be higher powers able to impress us, they may get access to us only through the subliminal door.”⁹⁷ Jung read the sequel to Job as the divine seeking to become conscious in the human being, an incarnation he took to continue in those the Spirit enters.⁹⁸ The Divine Action Project, a fifteen-year collaboration of theologians and scientists, sought accounts of divine action that leave the order of nature intact; several of its proposals place that action in quantum indeterminacy, and so in physics, where the framework places it in the meeting of the One with a perspective.⁹⁹

What follows such moments in a person has been studied, and the findings should be stated at their size. In controlled studies in which psilocybin, given under supportive conditions, occasioned a mystical-type experience similar to spontaneous ones, most participants rated it among the most meaningful of their lives and attributed lasting changes in attitude and behavior to it, changes that those around them partly confirmed; the changes that endured tracked both the experience and the practice kept up afterward.¹⁰⁰ Sudden and lasting transformations, which William Miller called quantum change, have been described in people who still reported them ten years on.¹⁰¹ In the fourteen-month follow-up of the first study, though, standard measures of personality, mood, and quality of life showed no change from screening; no study this journal has found follows the body through a spontaneous awakening from before to after; and some such experiences are distressing.¹⁰² On the series’ premise that experience is the inner nature of what physics describes, a change in how a perspective sees is, viewed from outside, a change in the body that sees. The framework proposes this as its reading of how the reaching works without overriding anything, and does not claim that the evidence shows it. How such a change sits with the closure of physics, the framework leaves open.

The sixth is Buddhism, which converges on an unconditioned beyond perception and declines a creator. Many Buddhist schools would question the one consciousness as well, reading any single ground of consciousness as one more thing to be seen through, and the sharpest of them meets the argument at its first step. Nāgārjuna’s Madhyamaka holds that nothing has an intrinsic nature (svabhāva): everything is empty of it and exists only in dependence, with no foundation at the bottom.¹⁰³ That is near the structural realist’s view, named above as the one on which the argument has nowhere to begin, and it was reached on Buddhism’s own ground. Journal Two reads emptiness as the framework’s relational ontology in Buddhist vocabulary, and on relation the reading holds; on intrinsic nature Madhyamaka is the dissent, not the support. The framework’s reply is that the nature it claims is not a thing standing apart from relation but the inside of every relation, a point at which the Yogācāra schools, which set consciousness at the center, come nearer to it;¹⁰⁴ it does not claim the reply settles the matter. On the further step, the source with intent, Buddhism is the dissenting witness.¹⁰⁵

10 Conclusion: Closing the Field

With this journal the field is, for now, closed. The four journals were always meant to be read together, and Journal Four has given what the first three were reaching toward: an account of what happens in the space between minds, and of the binding third that lets that space hold. The throughline is single. A mind is a pattern; a pattern leaves ripples through Time whichever way it faces, good ones to the degree that it is aligned; alignment is readiness to be bound well to others; and the binding, at every scale, is carried by a third that wants the whole more than itself. The line runs from the Center, in the framework’s vocabulary, outward through every relation a life enters, toward the limit of total binding, in which all perspectives would face the same way at once. Beneath the throughline sits the argument assembled above, for the proposal that every mind so described is a perspective of one consciousness, beyond perception and within each of us.

Journal Three ended on a musical image, and it is the right one to close on. The domains of that journal were different notes of the same hymn. The proposal of this journal is that the hymn is not sung alone: that a note in isolation is barely a note, that harmony is the color-neutral state toward which sound, like meaning, resolves, and that what turns two voices into a chord is always a third holding the interval open between them. The aligned person, on this reading, is the voice that listens hardest, sounds least for itself, and lets the others become music. The binding third is a hypothesis with its failure conditions named; the larger argument has been set out premise by premise, with its weakest steps marked; both are offered in the open, to be tested where they can be and contested where they cannot.

So the invitation is plain, and it is the one the introduction to Journal Three made. Challenge this. Find where it breaks. Ask whether you mean to prove it wrong for the satisfaction of winning or to test it and, if it holds, to expand it for the good of the thing itself, because the difference is the whole of the matter. If the work is sound, those who care will come looking, and they will find a question worth their rigor. If it is not, the work regroups, and the framework will have done its honest job by failing cleanly. Either way the line continues, from this Center outward, through all who read it, and onward into infinity. The field is closed; the question is open. That was always the point.

Notes

1. Johnson, Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, Journal One.

2. Johnson, The Resonating Hymn of Divinity.

3. Johnson, Frequency, Resonance, and the Architecture of Reality.

4. Johnson, On Becoming.

5. See, for example, Metzinger, Being No One.

6. Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop.

7. Tononi, “Consciousness as Integrated Information.”

8. See Journal Three, “Consciousness and Frequency,” on the Cogitate adversarial collaboration and the 2023 open letter. Johnson, Frequency, Resonance, and the Architecture of Reality.

9. Johnson, On Facing.

10. Johnson, On Rising.

11. Johnson, On Arriving.

12. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles; Close, Particle Physics.

13. Close, Particle Physics; Penrose, The Road to Reality.

14. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles; Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar.

15. Close, Particle Physics; Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles.

16. CERN Courier, “CMS Observes Top–Antitop Excess”; ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a Cross-Section Enhancement near the tt̄ Production Threshold.”

17. Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel.

18. Peirce, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce.

19. Jung, “The Transcendent Function.”

20. Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order; Bohm, On Dialogue.

21. Buber, I and Thou.

22. Augustine, On the Trinity 6.5.7; 15.26.47. On the Eastern position, Meyendorff, “Eastern Orthodoxy”: “For the Greeks the Father alone is the origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

23. Mueller, “The Hegel Legend of ‘Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.’”

24. CERN Courier, “Higgs Boson Reaches the Top”; on the threshold pairing, CERN Courier, “CMS Observes Top–Antitop Excess”; ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a Cross-Section Enhancement near the tt̄ Production Threshold.”

25. Johnson, Frequency, Resonance, and the Architecture of Reality.

26. Arendt, The Human Condition.

27. Johnson, On Facing.

28. Johnson, On Arriving.

29. Johnson, On Rising.

30. Polanyi, “The Republic of Science.”

31. Longino, Science as Social Knowledge.

32. Merton, “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order.” The four norms are communism (later communalism), universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism.

33. Hardwig, “Epistemic Dependence.”

34. Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, postscript.

35. Ogburn and Thomas, “Are Inventions Inevitable?”; Merton, “Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery.” See Journal Three, “The Mathematical Architecture of Oscillation.”

36. Schrödinger, “The Arithmetical Paradox: The Oneness of Mind,” in What Is Life? (the fourth chapter of Mind and Matter); the lectures were delivered at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1956 and first published as Mind and Matter (1958).

37. Eddington, Nature of the Physical World, chap. 13.

38. Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, final chapter.

39. Sullivan, “Interviews with Great Scientists. VI.—Max Planck.” The wording is Sullivan’s report of Planck’s spoken answer and is not found in Planck’s own published writing.

40. Einstein, cable to Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein, April 1929, as reported in Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “Professor Einstein Declares His Faith”; Einstein, “Religion and Science,” for the quoted words, as translated in Ideas and Opinions; the 1930 newspaper text may differ in wording, and the rest is paraphrased.

41. Wheeler, “Law without Law”; Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum.”

42. Sagan, Druyan, and Soter, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, episode 1, “The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean.”

43. Tesla, “My Inventions,” part III; Tesla, “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy.” Paraphrased. The saying often attributed to Tesla in which his brain is “only a receiver” for a core of knowledge in the universe has no traceable primary source and is not used here.

44. Pauli and Jung, Atom and Archetype; Jung and Pauli, The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche.

45. Atmanspacher, “Pauli–Jung Conjecture.”

46. Russell, Analysis of Matter, chap. 1; Goff, Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. On ontic structural realism, eliminative and moderate, see Ladyman, “Structural Realism.”

47. Strawson, “Realistic Monism”; Goff, Consciousness and Fundamental Reality.

48. Frankish, “Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness.”

49. Strawson, “Consciousness Deniers.”

50. Goff, Seager, and Allen-Hermanson, “Panpsychism,” sec. 3.2, on the simplicity argument.

51. Chalmers, “Combination Problem”; Johnson, The Jay and the Quark.

52. Schaffer, “Monism”; for a criticism of Schaffer, Siegel, “Priority Monism Is Contingent.” See Journal Three, “Structure and What It Leaves Out.”

53. Whitehead, Process and Reality, where “actual occasion” is reserved for the temporal actual entities and God is the one actual entity excepted. Paraphrased.

54. Nagasawa and Wager, “Panpsychism and Priority Cosmopsychism”; Shani, “Cosmopsychism: A Holistic Approach”; Goff, Consciousness and Fundamental Reality, chap. 9; and, for a version in which individual subjects are dissociated from one cosmic consciousness, Kastrup, “Universe in Consciousness.” Albahari, “Perennial Idealism,” defends a universal consciousness without a viewpoint of its own.

55. Spinoza, Ethics 1p15 and 1, appendix.

56. Roelofs, Combining Minds.

57. Kastrup, “Universe in Consciousness.”

58. Schaffer, “Monism,” 33.

59. Nagasawa and Wager, “Panpsychism and Priority Cosmopsychism.”

60. Goff, Consciousness and Fundamental Reality, 221; Stoljar, review of Consciousness and Fundamental Reality.

61. Strawson, “Realistic Monism,” where the point is credited to Frege.

62. Albahari, “Perennial Idealism.”

63. Vazza and Feletti, “Quantitative Comparison between the Neuronal Network and the Cosmic Web,” who also caution that power spectra “are blind to phase correlations in the continuous field,” so that two morphologically different distributions can still produce similar spectra.

64. Krioukov et al., “Network Cosmology.”

65. Kastrup, “Universe in Consciousness”; Chalmers, “Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem.”

66. Gregersen, “Three Varieties of Panentheism.”

67. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 14, a. 13, ad 3; Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy 5.pr.6. See also Johnson, The Jay and the Quark, “The Whole Seen at Once.”

68. Stump and Kretzmann, “Eternity,” where the relation is called ET-simultaneity.

69. Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”; Savitt, “Being and Becoming in Modern Physics,” sec. 3.

70. Stump and Kretzmann, “Eternity”; Padgett, God, Eternity and the Nature of Time, as quoted in Ganssle, “God and Time,” sec. 3a: they “cannot be defending anything more than a loose analogy with relativity theory.”

71. Goff, Why?

72. Konvalinka et al., “Synchronized Arousal”; Moreau et al., “Neurodynamic Model of Inter-brain Coupling”; and, on the limits of such findings, Holroyd, “Interbrain Synchrony.” See Journal Three, “Consciousness and Frequency.”

73. Tomasello, Why We Cooperate.

74. Shani, “Cosmopsychism, Coherence, and World-Affirming Monism”; Medhananda, “Playful Self-Involution of Divine Consciousness,” which takes the name of the problem from Freya Mathews.

75. James, Human Immortality; Huxley, Doors of Perception, where Huxley quotes C. D. Broad, with omissions, before giving the image.

76. Carhart-Harris et al., “Neural Correlates of the Psychedelic State”; Muthukumaraswamy et al., “Broadband Cortical Desynchronization.”

77. Katz, “Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism”; Taves, “Mystical and Other Alterations in Sense of Self.” See Journal Two, “The Recurring Instruction: Quieting the Mind.”

78. Proudfoot, Religious Experience; Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism.”

79. Forman, Problem of Pure Consciousness.

80. Boyer, Religion Explained.

81. Cawdron, “Cosmopsychism and the Problem of Evil.”

82. Jung, “Answer to Job.” Boorer, “Dark Side of God?,” summarizes the premise as God combining all opposites within the divine being, and sets a different reading of Job against it.

83. Griffin, God, Power, and Evil. See also Johnson, The Jay and the Quark, “The Whole Seen at Once.”

84. Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy 5.pr.6. Paraphrased.

85. Job 38:4, King James Version; the speeches run through Job 41.

86. Wykstra, “Humean Obstacle”; Bergmann, “Skeptical Theism and Rowe’s New Evidential Argument.” The second clause paraphrases Bergmann’s first thesis.

87. Almeida and Oppy, “Sceptical Theism and Evidential Arguments from Evil.”

88. Walker, Hays, and Kasting, “Negative Feedback Mechanism,” who call the quantitative details of the mechanism speculative; Junk, Bayley, and Sparks, “Flood Pulse Concept”; Keeley et al., “Fire as an Evolutionary Pressure.”

89. Fritz, “Disaster”; Solnit, Paradise Built in Hell.

90. Howell and Elliott, “Damages Done”; Klein, Shock Doctrine.

91. Whitehead, Process and Reality, pt. 5, chap. 2.

92. Whitehead, Process and Reality, pt. 5, chap. 2.

93. Dostoevsky, Brothers Karamazov, bk. 5, chap. 4, “Rebellion.”

94. Rowe, “Problem of Evil.”

95. Southgate, “God and a World of Natural Evil.”

96. Jung and Pauli, The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche, on synchronicity; the framework takes Jung’s description and not his acausal explanation, as Journal One sets out.

97. James, Varieties of Religious Experience, lecture 10.

98. Jung, “Answer to Job.” The reading is psychological; Jung held that the God-image and the Self cannot be told apart empirically, and the framework borrows the shape, not a metaphysical claim from him.

99. Wildman, “Divine Action Project.”

100. Griffiths et al., “Psilocybin Can Occasion Mystical-Type Experiences”; Griffiths et al., “Psilocybin-Occasioned Mystical-Type Experience in Combination with Meditation,” where “determinants of enduring effects were psilocybin-occasioned mystical-type experience and rates of meditation/spiritual practices.”

101. Miller, “Phenomenon of Quantum Change”; C’de Baca and Wilbourne, “Quantum Change: Ten Years Later,” which reinterviewed thirty of the original fifty-five.

102. Griffiths et al., “Mystical-Type Experiences Occasioned by Psilocybin,” where “only a scale measuring mystical experience showed a difference from screening”; Lindahl et al., “Varieties of Contemplative Experience.”

103. Westerhoff, “Nāgārjuna.”

104. Britannica Editors, “Yogachara,” which gives the school’s other name as Vijñānavāda, the “Doctrine of Consciousness.”

105. See Journal Two, “Beyond Perception and Within.”

References

Albahari, Miri. “Perennial Idealism: A Mystical Solution to the Mind-Body Problem.” Philosophers’ Imprint 19, no. 44 (2019): 1–37.

Almeida, Michael J., and Graham Oppy. “Sceptical Theism and Evidential Arguments from Evil.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 81, no. 4 (2003): 496–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/713659758.

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

ATLAS Collaboration. “Observation of a Cross-Section Enhancement near the tt̄ Production Threshold in √s = 13 TeV pp Collisions with the ATLAS Detector.” Reports on Progress in Physics 89, no. 5 (2026): 057801. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ae60a0.

Atmanspacher, Harald. “The Pauli–Jung Conjecture and Its Relatives: A Formally Augmented Outline.” Open Philosophy 3, no. 1 (2020): 527–549. https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0138.

Augustine. On the Trinity. Translated by Arthur West Haddan. Revised by William G. T. Shedd. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, vol. 3, edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1887.

Bergmann, Michael. “Skeptical Theism and Rowe’s New Evidential Argument from Evil.” Noûs 35, no. 2 (2001): 278–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/0029-4624.00297.

Boethius. The Theological Tractates; The Consolation of Philosophy. Translated by H. F. Stewart, E. K. Rand, and S. J. Tester. Loeb Classical Library 74. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Bohm, David. On Dialogue. London: Routledge, 1996.

Bohm, David. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.

Boorer, Suzanne. “The Dark Side of God? A Dialogue with Jung’s Interpretation of the Book of Job.” Pacifica 10, no. 3 (1997): 277–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1030570X9701000303.

Boyer, Pascal. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

Britannica Editors. “Yogachara.” In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed October 7, 2026. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Yogachara.

Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970. Originally published 1923.

Carhart-Harris, Robin L., David Erritzoe, Tim Williams, James M. Stone, Laurence J. Reed, Alessandro Colasanti, Robin J. Tyacke, et al. “Neural Correlates of the Psychedelic State as Determined by fMRI Studies with Psilocybin.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 6 (2012): 2138–2143. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1119598109.

Cawdron, Harvey. “Cosmopsychism and the Problem of Evil.” Sophia 63, no. 1 (2024): 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-023-00965-0.

C’de Baca, Janet, and Paula Wilbourne. “Quantum Change: Ten Years Later.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 60, no. 5 (2004): 531–541. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20006.

CERN Courier. “CMS Observes Top–Antitop Excess.” April 2, 2025. https://cerncourier.com/a/cms-observes-top-antitop-excess-2/.

CERN Courier. “Higgs Boson Reaches the Top.” June 1, 2018. https://cerncourier.com/a/higgs-boson-reaches-the-top/.

Chalmers, David J. “The Combination Problem for Panpsychism.” In Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Godehard Brüntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla, 179–214. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199359943.003.0008.

Chalmers, David J. “Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem.” In The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism, edited by William Seager, 353–373. London: Routledge, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717708-28.

Close, Frank. Particle Physics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Brothers Karamazov. Translated by Constance Garnett. London: William Heinemann, 1912.

Eddington, A. S. The Nature of the Physical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928.

Einstein, Albert. “Religion and Science.” In Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown, 1954. First published in New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930.

Einstein, Albert. “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper.” Annalen der Physik 17 (1905): 891–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19053221004.

Forman, Robert K. C., ed. The Problem of Pure Consciousness: Mysticism and Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Frankish, Keith. “Illusionism as a Theory of Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 23, nos. 11–12 (2016): 11–39.

Fritz, Charles E. “Disaster.” In Contemporary Social Problems, edited by Robert K. Merton and Robert A. Nisbet, 651–694. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961.

Ganssle, Gregory E. “God and Time.” In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/god-time/.

Gell-Mann, Murray. The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York: W. H. Freeman, 1994.

Goff, Philip. Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Philosophy of Mind Series. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Goff, Philip. Why? The Purpose of the Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023.

Goff, Philip, William Seager, and Sean Allen-Hermanson. “Panpsychism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2022 ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/panpsychism/.

Gregersen, Niels Henrik. “Three Varieties of Panentheism.” In In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World, edited by Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke, 19–35. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.

Griffin, David Ray. God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.

Griffiths, David J. Introduction to Elementary Particles. 2nd ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2008.

Griffiths, Roland R., Matthew W. Johnson, William A. Richards, Brian D. Richards, Robert Jesse, Katherine A. MacLean, Frederick S. Barrett, Mary P. Cosimano, and Maggie A. Klinedinst. “Psilocybin-Occasioned Mystical-Type Experience in Combination with Meditation and Other Spiritual Practices Produces Enduring Positive Changes in Psychological Functioning and in Trait Measures of Prosocial Attitudes and Behaviors.” Journal of Psychopharmacology 32, no. 1 (2018): 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881117731279.

Griffiths, Roland R., William A. Richards, Matthew W. Johnson, Una D. McCann, and Robert Jesse. “Mystical-Type Experiences Occasioned by Psilocybin Mediate the Attribution of Personal Meaning and Spiritual Significance 14 Months Later.” Journal of Psychopharmacology 22, no. 6 (2008): 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881108094300.

Griffiths, Roland R., William A. Richards, Una McCann, and Robert Jesse. “Psilocybin Can Occasion Mystical-Type Experiences Having Substantial and Sustained Personal Meaning and Spiritual Significance.” Psychopharmacology 187, no. 3 (2006): 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-006-0457-5.

Hardwig, John. “Epistemic Dependence.” Journal of Philosophy 82, no. 7 (1985): 335–349. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026523.

Hofstadter, Douglas R. I Am a Strange Loop. New York: Basic Books, 2007.

Holroyd, Clay B. “Interbrain Synchrony: On Wavy Ground.” Trends in Neurosciences 45, no. 5 (2022): 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2022.02.002.

The Holy Bible. Authorized King James Version. 1611. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, n.d.

Howell, Junia, and James R. Elliott. “Damages Done: The Longitudinal Impacts of Natural Hazards on Wealth Inequality in the United States.” Social Problems 66, no. 3 (2019): 448–467. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spy016.

Huxley, Aldous. The Doors of Perception. London: Chatto and Windus, 1954.

James, William. Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1898.

James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. New York: Longmans, Green, 1902.

Jeans, James. The Mysterious Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Professor Einstein Declares His Faith in Spinoza’s God.” April 28, 1929. https://www.jta.org/1929/04/28/archive/professor-einstein-declares-his-faith-in-spinozas-god.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. Frequency, Resonance, and the Architecture of Reality: A Theoretical Framework Measured by Science and Mathematics. Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, Journal Three. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20522506.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. The Jay and the Quark: A Perspectival Dual-Aspect Monism. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20579524.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Arriving. On ——ing Series. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20694684.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Becoming. On ——ing Series. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20822917.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Facing: Alignment, Time, and the Ripples We Leave. On ——ing Series. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20603463.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Rising. On ——ing Series. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20629373.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. The Resonating Hymn of Divinity: On the Universal Architecture of Faith. Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, Journal Two. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20512320.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. Toward a Theory of Coherent Existence, Journal One: A Philosophical Framework for Subjective Experience, Suffering, Community, and the Nature of Meaning. Kansas City, MO: Legible Traces, 2026. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20482186.

Jung, C. G. “Answer to Job.” In Psychology and Religion: West and East, translated by R. F. C. Hull, 2nd ed., Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol. 11. Bollingen Series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Jung, C. G. “The Transcendent Function.” In The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, translated by R. F. C. Hull, 2nd ed., Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol. 8. Bollingen Series XX. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969. Written 1916; first published 1957.

Jung, C. G., and W. Pauli. The Interpretation of Nature and the Psyche. Translated by R. F. C. Hull and Priscilla Silz. Bollingen Series LI. New York: Pantheon Books, 1955.

Junk, Wolfgang J., Peter B. Bayley, and Richard E. Sparks. “The Flood Pulse Concept in River-Floodplain Systems.” In Proceedings of the International Large River Symposium, edited by D. P. Dodge, 110–127. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 106. Ottawa: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1989.

Kastrup, Bernardo. “The Universe in Consciousness.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 25, nos. 5–6 (2018): 125–155.

Katz, Steven T. “Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism.” In Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, edited by Steven T. Katz, 22–74. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

Keeley, Jon E., Juli G. Pausas, Philip W. Rundel, William J. Bond, and Ross A. Bradstock. “Fire as an Evolutionary Pressure Shaping Plant Traits.” Trends in Plant Science 16, no. 8 (2011): 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2011.04.002.

Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007.

Konvalinka, Ivana, Dimitris Xygalatas, Joseph Bulbulia, Uffe Schjødt, Else-Marie Jegindø, Sebastian Wallot, Guy Van Orden, and Andreas Roepstorff. “Synchronized Arousal between Performers and Related Spectators in a Fire-Walking Ritual.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 20 (2011): 8514–8519. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016955108.

Krioukov, Dmitri, Maksim Kitsak, Robert S. Sinkovits, David Rideout, David Meyer, and Marián Boguñá. “Network Cosmology.” Scientific Reports 2 (2012): 793. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00793.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed., enlarged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Ladyman, James. “Structural Realism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2023 ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/structural-realism/.

Lindahl, Jared R., Nathan E. Fisher, David J. Cooper, Rochelle K. Rosen, and Willoughby B. Britton. “The Varieties of Contemplative Experience: A Mixed-Methods Study of Meditation-Related Challenges in Western Buddhists.” PLOS ONE 12, no. 5 (2017): e0176239. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176239.

Longino, Helen E. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990.

Medhananda, Swami. “The Playful Self-Involution of Divine Consciousness: Sri Aurobindo’s Evolutionary Cosmopsychism and His Response to the Individuation Problem.” Monist 105, no. 1 (2022): 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onab025.

Merton, Robert K. “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order.” Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1 (1942): 115–126. Reprinted as “The Normative Structure of Science,” in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Norman W. Storer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

Merton, Robert K. “Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105, no. 5 (1961): 470–486.

Metzinger, Thomas. Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.

Meyendorff, John. “Eastern Orthodoxy.” In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed October 6, 2026. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eastern-Orthodoxy.

Miller, William R. “The Phenomenon of Quantum Change.” Journal of Clinical Psychology 60, no. 5 (2004): 453–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20000.

Moreau, Quentin, Lena Adel, Caitriona Douglas, Ghazaleh Ranjbaran, and Guillaume Dumas. “A Neurodynamic Model of Inter-brain Coupling in the Gamma Band.” Journal of Neurophysiology 128, no. 5 (2022): 1085–1090. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00224.2022.

Mueller, Gustav E. “The Hegel Legend of ‘Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis.’” Journal of the History of Ideas 19, no. 3 (1958): 411–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708045.

Muthukumaraswamy, Suresh D., Robin L. Carhart-Harris, Rosalyn J. Moran, Matthew J. Brookes, Tim M. Williams, David Erritzoe, Ben Sessa, et al. “Broadband Cortical Desynchronization Underlies the Human Psychedelic State.” Journal of Neuroscience 33, no. 38 (2013): 15171–15183. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2063-13.2013.

Nagasawa, Yujin, and Khai Wager. “Panpsychism and Priority Cosmopsychism.” In Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Godehard Brüntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla, 113–129. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Ogburn, William F., and Dorothy Thomas. “Are Inventions Inevitable? A Note on Social Evolution.” Political Science Quarterly 37, no. 1 (1922): 83–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/2142320.

Padgett, Alan G. God, Eternity and the Nature of Time. Library of Philosophy and Religion. London: Macmillan, 1992.

Pauli, Wolfgang, and C. G. Jung. Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters, 1932–1958. Edited by C. A. Meier. Translated by David Roscoe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Peirce, Charles Sanders. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (vols. 1–6) and Arthur W. Burks (vols. 7–8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931–1958.

Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. London: Jonathan Cape, 2004.

Polanyi, Michael. “The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory.” Minerva 1, no. 1 (1962): 54–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01101453.

Proudfoot, Wayne. Religious Experience. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.

Roelofs, Luke. Combining Minds: How to Think about Composite Subjectivity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Rowe, William L. “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” American Philosophical Quarterly 16, no. 4 (1979): 335–341.

Russell, Bertrand. The Analysis of Matter. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1927.

Sagan, Carl, Ann Druyan, and Steven Soter, writers. Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Episode 1, “The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean.” PBS, 1980.

Savitt, Steven. “Being and Becoming in Modern Physics.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2021 ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/spacetime-bebecome/.

Schaffer, Jonathan. “Monism: The Priority of the Whole.” Philosophical Review 119, no. 1 (2010): 31–76. https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-2009-025.

Schrödinger, Erwin. What Is Life? With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches. Canto ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Shani, Itay. “Cosmopsychism: A Holistic Approach to the Metaphysics of Experience.” Philosophical Papers 44, no. 3 (2015): 389–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2015.1106709.

Shani, Itay. “Cosmopsychism, Coherence, and World-Affirming Monism.” Monist 105, no. 1 (2022): 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/onab020.

Sharf, Robert H. “Buddhist Modernism and the Rhetoric of Meditative Experience.” Numen 42, no. 3 (1995): 228–283. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568527952598549.

Siegel, Max. “Priority Monism Is Contingent.” Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 5, no. 1 (2016): 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/tht3.190.

Simmel, Georg. The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Translated and edited by Kurt H. Wolff. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1950.

Solnit, Rebecca. A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities That Arise in Disaster. New York: Viking, 2009.

Southgate, Christopher. “God and a World of Natural Evil: Theology and Science in Hard Conversation.” Zygon 57, no. 4 (2022): 1124–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12849.

Spinoza, Baruch. Ethics. In The Collected Works of Spinoza, vol. 1, edited and translated by Edwin Curley. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. Originally published 1677.

Stoljar, Daniel. Review of Consciousness and Fundamental Reality, by Philip Goff. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, February 9, 2018. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/consciousness-and-fundamental-reality/.

Strawson, Galen. “The Consciousness Deniers.” NYR Daily, New York Review of Books, March 13, 2018. https://www.nybooks.com/online/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/.

Strawson, Galen. “Realistic Monism: Why Physicalism Entails Panpsychism.” Journal of Consciousness Studies 13, nos. 10–11 (2006): 3–31.

Stump, Eleonore, and Norman Kretzmann. “Eternity.” Journal of Philosophy 78, no. 8 (1981): 429–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026047.

Sullivan, J. W. N. “Interviews with Great Scientists. VI.—Max Planck.” Observer (London), January 25, 1931, 17.

Taves, Ann. “Mystical and Other Alterations in Sense of Self: An Expanded Framework for Studying Nonordinary Experiences.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 15, no. 3 (2020): 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895047.

Tesla, Nikola. “My Inventions.” Electrical Experimenter, February–October 1919.

Tesla, Nikola. “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy.” Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine 60 (June 1900).

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. 2nd rev. ed. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1920.

Tomasello, Michael. Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.

Tononi, Giulio. “Consciousness as Integrated Information: A Provisional Manifesto.” Biological Bulletin 215, no. 3 (2008): 216–242. https://doi.org/10.2307/25470707.

Vazza, Franco, and Alberto Feletti. “The Quantitative Comparison between the Neuronal Network and the Cosmic Web.” Frontiers in Physics 8 (2020): 525731. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2020.525731.

Walker, James C. G., P. B. Hays, and J. F. Kasting. “A Negative Feedback Mechanism for the Long-Term Stabilization of Earth’s Surface Temperature.” Journal of Geophysical Research 86, no. C10 (1981): 9776–9782. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC086iC10p09776.

Westerhoff, Jan. “Nāgārjuna.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2025 ed., edited by Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2025/entries/nagarjuna/.

Wheeler, John Archibald. “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links.” In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, edited by Wojciech H. Zurek, 3–28. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Wheeler, John Archibald. “Law without Law.” In Quantum Theory and Measurement, edited by John Archibald Wheeler and Wojciech H. Zurek, 182–213. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected ed. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: Free Press, 1978. Originally published 1929.

Wildman, Wesley J. “The Divine Action Project, 1988–2003.” Theology and Science 2, no. 1 (2004): 31–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/1474670042000196612.

Wykstra, Stephen J. “The Humean Obstacle to Evidential Arguments from Suffering: On Avoiding the Evils of ‘Appearance.’” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 16, no. 2 (1984): 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00136567.

CC BY 4.0 · ORCID 0009-0009-8618-398X · DOIs MINTED ON DEPOSIT

© 2026 JAMISON TODD JOHNSON · LEGIBLE TRACES LLC